Title |
Focus article: report of the NIH task force on research standards for chronic low back pain
|
---|---|
Published in |
European Spine Journal, September 2014
|
DOI | 10.1007/s00586-014-3540-3 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Richard A. Deyo, Samuel F. Dworkin, Dagmar Amtmann, Gunnar Andersson, David Borenstein, Eugene Carragee, John Carrino, Roger Chou, Karon Cook, Anthony DeLitto, Christine Goertz, Partap Khalsa, John Loeser, Sean Mackey, James Panagis, James Rainville, Tor Tosteson, Dennis Turk, Michael Von Korff, Debra K. Weiner |
Abstract |
Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. Therefore, NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimum dataset to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect that the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Japan | 1 | 1% |
Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
Denmark | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 67 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 14% |
Researcher | 9 | 13% |
Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
Other | 6 | 9% |
Other | 15 | 21% |
Unknown | 17 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 39% |
Psychology | 5 | 7% |
Neuroscience | 4 | 6% |
Engineering | 3 | 4% |
Sports and Recreations | 3 | 4% |
Other | 7 | 10% |
Unknown | 21 | 30% |